"Waterfront" condo purchasers in Pattaya could see some developments later this month

[DrTuner]

I dunno. It sort of fits, a giant half erect schlong smack in the middle. 

[JSixpack]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. The thing that counts is not what you or I think, but what the locals think, and they want ALL their view, not what is left after a building is constructed in the wrong place.

 

 

You'll need to live in Thailand longer to understand Thais better. Difficult for noobs. Avoid projecting your own views onto Thais.

 

Most Thais don't care one way or the other. What is, is. The locals benefitting from the income and revenue generated from the development were, and are, very much in favor of it. So I guess that's thousands, projecting into the future. (Not to mention Thais buying condos there.) Quite a difference between an old pensioner leisurely pontificating on TVF and a poor Thai who needs the job the development did, and could, bring. 

[pattayadude]

2 minutes ago, JSixpack said:

Avoid projecting your own views onto Thais.

[JSixpack]

57 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

55555555555555555555555555

We all know WHY the "former" mayor supported the project.

 

Same reason he supported Central, the Tunnel, T21, & Promenade? Would it be somehow related to the reason mayors of Miami, Honolulu, and Las Vegas supported all those concrete monstrosities spoiling the natural environment?

 

 

[KneeDeep]

 

On 19/01/2018 at 12:44 AM, pattayadude said:

you insisted on the road being "same" for days without knowing the reality

then you admitted you were wrong when you compared  the older photos of the narrow road I posted(half the size that of today) , with the new beautiful photos Pattaya46 took and posted that day (more than doubled width that of 1 year ago).

 

Now you insist on so many other off-topic matters such as Colombia, women, jacuzzi, rooftop etc. asking photographic proof from me in retaliation and vengeance on the previous topic,  but it's a little too late as your credibility is toast already.

You claim to own a condo and live in a Latin American country (Peru) but you can't even spell Colombia (you make the same mistake of millions who misspell Colombia as Columbia) LOL

AND I won't go off-topic any more than I did with respect to the rules of the forum.

Adios,que te vaya bien !

 

What is this nonsense?

I saw the road and it looks the same width to me. A road looping around and coming back to run alongside itself doesn't count as a dual carriageway to me.

Where did I write that I lived in Lima? 

Your excitement over the mis-spelling of Colombia seems somehow, retarded.

So if I live in Europe and misspell Luxembourg, that is something worthy of gloating about in two separate posts of yours? Wow...

 

The fact is that you claimed to own an apartment in Colombia with 50/50 inside/outside space, but then posted pictures taken of a completely unrelated apartment from an estate agency.

Now you been busted as a fake, you are trying desperately to sling mud in the hope of obfuscation.

 

Anyway, we know now. You have no pictures to share, so let's move on.

 

I happen to have met a Russian couple who purchased an apartment at Waterfront a few years ago. As we had dinner, they told that they would look out of the window of their current apartment at the construction at where their apartment was to be. He was so proud.

I didn't know how to tell them that construction wan't likely to go forward for quite some time, if ever.

 

Few would argue that we need development. But it should be sustainable development.

If Waterfront was sustainable and viable, it would already be built.

In reality it was all smoke and mirrors. 

To suggest it was all for the common good is just nonsense.

The whole area is an eyesore.

Nonsense about it being some sort of upmarket area with commensurate shopping and facilities just that.

Look at the money spent on the apparent clean-up. It still looks like crap.

So serious money will need to be spent on the whole area. 

Who is going to pay for that?

We've had the same old faces here trumpeting "iconic building" for years.

We know who and what they are.

So let's not pretend that this is some great thing that is good for the locals and the area.

Which locals would that be? I know many and none of them talk about how the Waterfront would be good for the area.

In fact many of them lament the loss of the park to that parking monstrosity.

There used to be a cosy tropical feel to that area. I know better than most, as I used to live there for many years.

I just don't make a big noise about it, like some posting here, living in high rise apartments some way away.

So in all of those years, the area has gotten progressively worse. All efforts to drive it upmarket have failed.

If they had created an equally pleasant environment, none of us would be on this thread.

The place is horrible. Not at all desirable.

 

[wakeupplease]

On 1/19/2018 at 7:12 AM, pattayadude said:

it's their country(Thais), their elected officials,

Elected officials

 

what are you on?

[champa]

7 hours ago, JSixpack said:

 

You'll need to live in Thailand longer to understand Thais better. Difficult for noobs. Avoid projecting your own views onto Thais.

 

Most Thais don't care one way or the other. What is, is. The locals benefitting from the income and revenue generated from the development were, and are, very much in favor of it. So I guess that's thousands, projecting into the future. (Not to mention Thais buying condos there.) Quite a difference between an old pensioner leisurely pontificating on TVF and a poor Thai who needs the job the development did, and could, bring. 

Don't say that you understand Thais enough. The waterfront phenomenon shows that not all Thais concern only the benefit, income and revenue.   

 

To all buyers, I really do not understand why you not blame the developer for all troubles? 

 

This is what about the violations. Nothing about Thais, election and coup.  

[Destiny1990]

7 hours ago, KneeDeep said:

 

 

What is this nonsense?

I saw the road and it looks the same width to me. A road looping around and coming back to run alongside itself doesn't count as a dual carriageway to me.

Where did I write that I lived in Lima? 

Your excitement over the mis-spelling of Colombia seems somehow, retarded.

So if I live in Europe and misspell Luxembourg, that is something worthy of gloating about in two separate posts of yours? Wow...

 

The fact is that you claimed to own an apartment in Colombia with 50/50 inside/outside space, but then posted pictures taken of a completely unrelated apartment from an estate agency.

Now you been busted as a fake, you are trying desperately to sling mud in the hope of obfuscation.

 

Anyway, we know now. You have no pictures to share, so let's move on.

 

I happen to have met a Russian couple who purchased an apartment at Waterfront a few years ago. As we had dinner, they told that they would look out of the window of their current apartment at the construction at where their apartment was to be. He was so proud.

I didn't know how to tell them that construction wan't likely to go forward for quite some time, if ever.

 

Few would argue that we need development. But it should be sustainable development.

If Waterfront was sustainable and viable, it would already be built.

In reality it was all smoke and mirrors. 

To suggest it was all for the common good is just nonsense.

The whole area is an eyesore.

Nonsense about it being some sort of upmarket area with commensurate shopping and facilities just that.

Look at the money spent on the apparent clean-up. It still looks like crap.

So serious money will need to be spent on the whole area. 

Who is going to pay for that?

We've had the same old faces here trumpeting "iconic building" for years.

We know who and what they are.

So let's not pretend that this is some great thing that is good for the locals and the area.

Which locals would that be? I know many and none of them talk about how the Waterfront would be good for the area.

In fact many of them lament the loss of the park to that parking monstrosity.

There used to be a cosy tropical feel to that area. I know better than most, as I used to live there for many years.

I just don't make a big noise about it, like some posting here, living in high rise apartments some way away.

So in all of those years, the area has gotten progressively worse. All efforts to drive it upmarket have failed.

If they had created an equally pleasant environment, none of us would be on this thread.

The place is horrible. Not at all desirable.

 

Ugly park, ugly car parking, ugly condo.

Seems all is Matching at Bali Hai.

[marinediscoking]

This is the worst building ever built in the history of Pattaya! I only wish I would have joined the protest with the brave local thai's who got the attention of the gov. investigators to put a halt to it!  The only good thing about the coup was it got rid of the former mayor who illegally permitted the Israeli company to build it. 

 

The only visible green hill from the Pattaya should be left be and to all the idiots who keep bumping this thread for updates, YOUR CONDO MONEY IS GONE!

[newnative]

9 hours ago, champa said:

Don't say that you understand Thais enough. The waterfront phenomenon shows that not all Thais concern only the benefit, income and revenue.   

 

To all buyers, I really do not understand why you not blame the developer for all troubles? 

 

This is what about the violations. Nothing about Thais, election and coup.  

      Why should  the developer be blamed?  The developer applied to build a highrise building on that particular, very prominent piece of property.  Thais were the ones that looked at the developer's plans for a very high building (for Pattaya) on that site.  Thais were the ones that studied the environmental impact--which should have included any impact to views. Thais were the ones that gave final approval for a highrise to be built there.  If you don't like the building, I think it's pretty clear where the 'blame' lies.  

[pattayadude]

5 hours ago, marinediscoking said:

The only good thing about the coup was it got rid of the former mayor

are you suggesting everything else about the coup was in vain?

[pattayadude]

8 hours ago, Destiny1990 said:

Ugly park, ugly car parking, ugly condo.

Seems all is Matching at Bali Hai.

Well said!..i think the weird new improvements, weird light poles and the marina junkyard, horrid hundreds of makeshift boats in what's called the marina in the background  does match the rest of the concrete jungle and almost the entirety of the 2km of unfinished eroding beach projects .

[JSixpack]

12 hours ago, champa said:

Don't say that you understand Thais enough. The waterfront phenomenon shows that not all Thais concern only the benefit, income and revenue.  

 

 

Looks like I understand them better than you do at least. Thai culture has never concerned itself that ALL Thais benefit equally from any particular development. It's more of a hierarchical than egalitarian society. Hence the notable lack of zoning and views protection ordinances.

 

And such is capitalism anyway.

 

So without realizing it you've actually agreed with my point--different Thai individuals and different groups DO want different things. And as I said, most Thais don't care one way or the other whether Waterfront was built as intended. I think most would say it should be finished, however, if you called attention to its current state and asked them.

 

Quote

To all buyers, I really do not understand why you not blame the developer for all troubles?

 

This is what about the violations. Nothing about Thais, election and coup.  

2

 

As newnative points out, it's very much about Thais. Hence this particular issue would not have occurred in a developed Western country.

 

3 hours ago, newnative said:

Thais were the ones that looked at the developer's plans for a very high building (for Pattaya) on that site.  Thais were the ones that studied the environmental impact--which should have included any impact to views. Thais were the ones that gave final approval for a highrise to be built there.  If you don't like the building, I think it's pretty clear where the 'blame' lies.  

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

20 hours ago, JSixpack said:

 

You'll need to live in Thailand longer to understand Thais better. Difficult for noobs. Avoid projecting your own views onto Thais.

 

 

Difficult for noobs

x a million.

[thaibeachlovers]

20 hours ago, JSixpack said:

 

 Avoid projecting your own views onto Thais.

 

Most Thais don't care one way or the other. 

 

[GreytMan]

3 hours ago, newnative said:

      Why should  the developer be blamed?  The developer applied to build a highrise building on that particular, very prominent piece of property.  Thais were the ones that looked at the developer's plans for a very high building (for Pattaya) on that site.  Thais were the ones that studied the environmental impact--which should have included any impact to views. Thais were the ones that gave final approval for a highrise to be built there.  If you don't like the building, I think it's pretty clear where the 'blame' lies.  

 

 

Because they went outside the initial EIA approval.

The initial project was a failure. In order to get investment to revive it, the developers went outside the original remit.

 

[Rimmer]

A baiting troll post has been removed

[newnative]

1 hour ago, GreytMan said:

 

 

Because they went outside the initial EIA approval.

The initial project was a failure. In order to get investment to revive it, the developers went outside the original remit.

 

     Where did they go 'outside the original remit'?   I'm curious because nobody seems to be able to nail this down.  Documents that were posted on the Magna Carta website (which I think is or was representing some of the buyers) indicate that the lowrise sales office, the building next to Waterfront, intrudes slightly onto park land.  Seems it would be a simple remedy to tear that building down.  If I recall correctly, I think there was also something to do with the number of parking spaces.  Over the years I've also heard mention of possibly slightly more square footage being built than was approved. 

      None of these issues would have any impact on what caused the construction to be halted, namely views being blocked from the mountain.  Even if slightly more square footage was built, it wouldn't make a difference with the mountain views.  Taking down the top 10 floors would just expose a little more sky.  

 

[CRUNCHER]

Demolishing Waterfront in the next 10 to 20 years is not a viable option.  Who is going to do it?  Who is going to pay?

 

You don,t have to go to Bangkok for examples; where there are many.  In Pattaya you only have to look at Batman Nightclub/Disco.

 

City Hall cannot demolish a small hotel in Soi VC. In Bangkok the BMA estimated that it would cost 200 million baht to demolish a smaller building (forget the name).

 

If Bali Hai goes bankrupt this will crawl through the courts for 10 years plus another 10 years to get the shell demolished. If Bali Hai is bankrupt they will not have the money to pay. If the bank ends up owning the land they will not do it; they never do.

 

Whether you like Waterfront or not we are where we are. There are only two ways forward:-

1. Finish the building.  It will at least look better than it does now
2. Leave in its present state for the next 10 to 20 years.

[pattayadude]

6 minutes ago, CRUNCHER said:

Demolishing Waterfront in the next 10 to 20 years is not a viable option.  Who is going to do it?  Who is going to pay?

 

You don,t have to go to Bangkok for examples; where there are many.  In Pattaya you only have to look at Batman Nightclub/Disco.

 

City Hall cannot demolish a small hotel in Soi VC. In Bangkok the BMA estimated that it would cost 200 million baht to demolish a smaller building (forget the name).

 

If Bali Hai goes bankrupt this will crawl through the courts for 10 years plus another 10 years to get the shell demolished. If Bali Hai is bankrupt they will not have the money to pay. If the bank ends up owning the land they will not do it; they never do.

 

Whether you like Waterfront or not we are where we are. There are only two ways forward:-

1. Finish the building.  It will at least look better than it does now
2. Leave in its present state for the next 10 to 20 years.

Bali Hao Co was formed with a 10million baht initial capital. That will not even be enough to pay for demolition plans and permits

[pattayadude]

14 minutes ago, newnative said:

Seems it would be a simple remedy to tear that building down

Park Plaza was ordered to partially demolish the sales office just recently

[CRUNCHER]

2 minutes ago, pattayadude said:

Park Plaza was ordered to partially demolish the sales office just recently

I think you will find Bali Hai was ordered to do the demolition.

In any event, Park Plaza do not own Bali Hai any more.  They sold it to Red Sea Hotels.

[pattayadude]

1 minute ago, CRUNCHER said:

I think you will find Bali Hai was ordered to do the demolition.

In any event, Park Plaza do not own Bali Hai any more.  They sold it to Red Sea Hotels.

my apologies. I have a bad habit of using either one of the two names by mistake when I mention of the developer. You are correct

[pattayadude]

15 minutes ago, pattayadude said:

Demolishing Waterfront in the next 10 to 20 years is not a viable option.  Who is going to do it?  Who is going to pay?

Who will still be around?

[CRUNCHER]

1 minute ago, pattayadude said:

my apologies. I have a bad habit of using either one of the two names by mistake when I mention of the developer. You are correct

No need to apologize; an easy mistake.

 

The important point is that the only entity amenable to the courts and authorities of Thailand is Bali Hai.  That is why the big international companies put so many layers in the cake. And that is why there will be no one to pay for demolition.

[pattayadude]

19 minutes ago, CRUNCHER said:

And that is why there will be no one to pay for demolition.

I think thaibeachlovers would be happy to pay for it

[CRUNCHER]

1 hour ago, newnative said:

     Where did they go 'outside the original remit'?   I'm curious because nobody seems to be able to nail this down.  Documents that were posted on the Magna Carta website (which I think is or was representing some of the buyers) indicate that the lowrise sales office, the building next to Waterfront, intrudes slightly onto park land.  Seems it would be a simple remedy to tear that building down.  If I recall correctly, I think there was also something to do with the number of parking spaces.  Over the years I've also heard mention of possibly slightly more square footage being built than was approved. 

      None of these issues would have any impact on what caused the construction to be halted, namely views being blocked from the mountain.  Even if slightly more square footage was built, it wouldn't make a difference with the mountain views.  Taking down the top 10 floors would just expose a little more sky.  

 

I have been talking to a couple of buyers that I know and I have seen most of the blurb that Bali Hai have put out.  I wont accuse Bali Hai of lying, but I think they have been economical with the truth. Apart from the ex-mayor's press conference (which highlighted lifts and staircases/fire escapes) and the ex-deputy mayor's radio broad cast (which mostly dealt with the width of the road) City Hall have said nothing.

 

As I understand it Waterfront was approved for 38,000 plus square meters of saleable floor area, but this was exceeded.  Rumor has it that the overbuild was as much as 5,000 square meters, but there is no authoritative source for this. Bali Hai agreed to demolish 5 floors to deal with the overbuild issue and allegedly this was acceptable to City Hall. The demolition of 5 floors had nothing to do with the height or view as the height was legal.

 

The number of units was increase from just over 300 to 400, mostly, it seems to facilitate the hotel. I am not sure if this issue has been resolved.

 

As a result of re-designing the building the number of car parking spaces was reduced from the required 144 to about 90.  Bali Hai's idea was to use an automated hydraulic car parking system to provide about 150 parking spaces.  City Hall did not like this because such a system was not included in the sales contracts. As far as I know this issue has not been resolved.

 

The encroachment is only in respect of the sales office and since this will be demolished as and if Waterfront is finished this is not a big issue.

 

There are one or two other issues, but I do not know details. I believe they are solvable.

[Pattaya46]

3 hours ago, CRUNCHER said:

City Hall cannot demolish a small hotel in Soi VC. 

 

Work in progress...

About 4 floors left on the 11 floors that Boutique Hotel once had.

[Jack100]

Oh what a tangled web...........................

[newnative]

5 hours ago, CRUNCHER said:

I have been talking to a couple of buyers that I know and I have seen most of the blurb that Bali Hai have put out.  I wont accuse Bali Hai of lying, but I think they have been economical with the truth. Apart from the ex-mayor's press conference (which highlighted lifts and staircases/fire escapes) and the ex-deputy mayor's radio broad cast (which mostly dealt with the width of the road) City Hall have said nothing.

 

As I understand it Waterfront was approved for 38,000 plus square meters of saleable floor area, but this was exceeded.  Rumor has it that the overbuild was as much as 5,000 square meters, but there is no authoritative source for this. Bali Hai agreed to demolish 5 floors to deal with the overbuild issue and allegedly this was acceptable to City Hall. The demolition of 5 floors had nothing to do with the height or view as the height was legal.

 

The number of units was increase from just over 300 to 400, mostly, it seems to facilitate the hotel. I am not sure if this issue has been resolved.

 

As a result of re-designing the building the number of car parking spaces was reduced from the required 144 to about 90.  Bali Hai's idea was to use an automated hydraulic car parking system to provide about 150 parking spaces.  City Hall did not like this because such a system was not included in the sales contracts. As far as I know this issue has not been resolved.

 

The encroachment is only in respect of the sales office and since this will be demolished as and if Waterfront is finished this is not a big issue.

 

There are one or two other issues, but I do not know details. I believe they are solvable.

Interesting.  Thanks.